Introduction
This article adds to the existing scholarship on the intertextuality between the Thebaid and Sophoclean drama. It explores how Statius engages with Sophocles’ versions of the myths of Oenomaus and Lycurgus, which offer depictions of archetypal offenders and, thus, are thematically relevant to the poem’s narrative. More specifically, their stories exemplify characters who transgressed social and religious norms and, as such, accord with various aspects of the Thebaid, an epic obsessed with problematic kingship,Footnote 3 excessive anger,Footnote 4 extreme violence, the outrageous disregard for proper burial,Footnote 5 the breaking of moral rules and nefas in general.Footnote 6 It further argues that the thematic relevance of these two myths for Statius’ epic renders the references in Theb. 1.274‒8 (Juno’s description of Oenomaus’ impious crimes) and Theb. 4.386 (the queen bacchant’s reminder of Lycurgus’ punishment) part of Statius’ proleptic strategy, leading the reader to anticipate through multiple, albeit different, nexuses Tydeus’ cannibalism (Theb. 8.751–61) and the theomachy and punishment of Capaneus (Theb. 10.899–906). At the same time, these excerpts also function as a point of comparison to assess the gravity of the offences committed by the two Statian heroes. My analysis, showing that the references in Theb. 1.274‒8 and 4.386 operate in a twofold way, offers a new perspective on the mechanisms at work behind Statius’ rich and complex intertextuality and narrative technique.
Sophoclean innovations: the myth of Oenomaus
The myth of Oenomaus, king of Pisa in Elis, was a popular source of inspiration for ancient poets. The story goes that Oenomaus learned by prophecy that he would be killed by the person who married his daughter, Hippodamia (Apollod. Epit. 2.4; FGrH I fr. 37). To avoid this fate, he promised her as bride to whoever would manage to beat him in a chariot race (Apollod. Epit. 2.5). Many suitors made the attempt, but each and every one failed, until Pelops succeeded by means of trickery and treason, killing Oenomaus and marrying Hippodamia (Apollod. Epit. 2.7–8; Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.752–8).Footnote 7
What is special about Sophocles’ treatment of the myth is that it is the earliest-known adaptation in which the bodies of the dead suitors are desecrated by Oenomaus after their defeat and subsequent death (F473a Radt):Footnote 8
ἰδίως τὸν Ἀνταῖόν φησι τῶν ξένων τῶν ἡττωμένων τοῖς κρανίοις ἐρέφειν τὸν τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ναόν· τοῦτο γὰρ ἱστοροῦσι Διομήδην τὸν Θρᾷκα ποιεῖν, Βακχυλίδης δὲ Εὔηνον ἐπὶ τῶν Mαρπίσσης μνηστήρων, οἱ δὲ Οἰνόμαον, ὡς Σοφοκλῆς.
Schol. Pind. Isth. 4.92a (Drachmann Reference Drachmann1927, p. 236)
He says specifically that Antaeus roofed the temple of Poseidon with the skulls of defeated foreigners. For they narrate that Diomedes of Thrace did this, while Bacchylides claims that Evenos did this to the suitors of Marpessa, others, like Sophocles, that it was Oenomaus.
The passage argues that the Sophoclean version included the gruesome detail of Oenomaus roofing a god’s temple with the suitors’ skulls.Footnote 9 Yet, according to Radt F473, there was even greater brutality in Sophocles’ play:
Σκυθιστὶ χειρόμακτρον ἐκκεκαρμένος
With the head flayed into a towel, according to the Scythian custom
Scholars propose that this verse was uttered by Pelops upon his arrival at the house of Oenomaus while contemplating the suitors’ severed heads that decorated the building.Footnote 10 It has also been argued that Sophocles refers to a Scythian war custom which was well known to Greeks at least since the time of Herodotus (Hdt. 4.64.2).Footnote 11 The word χειρόμακτρον, which is employed by both Sophocles and Herodotus to describe the use of the scalp as a towel, may suggest the former’s familiarity with the historian’s account.
What seems more certain, however, is that the tragedian expected his audience to recall the information concerning the Scythian custom, since the verse (F473) would be meaningless otherwise.Footnote 12 By portraying Oenomaus as practising the custom of the Scythians, Sophocles sketches him as a savage individual whose behaviour does not befit civilised Greece.Footnote 13 Thus, his figure is assimilated with that of a barbarian, emerging as an ‘internal other’ in the eyes of the Athenian audience.Footnote 14
The gruesomeness of Oenomaus’ actions is alluded to in Thebaid 1.274‒8 as part of the speech of Juno, who lists a number of Jupiter’s problematic cult places in an effort to convince him to spare Argos:Footnote 15
… illic Mauortius axis
Oenomai Geticoque pecus stabulare sub Haemo 275
dignius abruptis etiamnum inhumata procorum
reliquiis trunca ora rigent; tamen hic tibi templi
gratus honos; …
… there, the war chariot of
Oenomaus, and steeds worthier of being stabled under the Getic Haemus;
even today, the suitors’ unburied, disfigured faces
remain stiff, detached from the rest of their bodies; however, a temple there is a pleasant honour for you…
The abruptis reliquiis alludes to the suitors’ decapitated bodies,Footnote 16 and thus the phrase trunca … ora seems superfluous unless it means something different than simply ‘heads cut off’. The word os usually translates as ‘mouth’, and it is used metonymically to denote not only the head but also the face,Footnote 17 whereas the adjective truncus literally means ‘maimed, mutilated, mangled’.Footnote 18 Hence, the collocation trunca…ora seems to imply some type of trauma which disfigured the suitors’ faces like those described in Verg. Aen. 6.497 (truncus referring to the shearing of Deiphobus’ nostrils) and Theb. 4.107 (used for Achelous’ wound after Hercules broke his horn; see also Ov. Met. 9.1–2 and Her. 9.140). Taking into account these passages, lines 4.276–7 can be construed as recalling the Sophoclean image of the suitors’ heads being cut off and deprived of their facial skin, an action that certainly causes disfigurement.Footnote 19
The thematic link with Sophocles’ version of Oenomaus’ tale is further supported by Juno’s accusation in lines 277–8. Her claim that the suitors’ trunca ora still (etiamnum) remain unburied (inhumata),Footnote 20 in conjunction with her reference to a temple that, despite Oenomaus’ barbarity, is considered a great honour by the father of gods, recalls the Schol. Pind. Isth. 4.92a, which states that Sophocles’ tragedy mentioned the use of the suitors’ heads as building material for a temple. Although Juno does not name either the location of this temple or the kingdom of Oenomaus, scholars recognise that she refers to Olympia – the goddess lumps together Arcadia and Oenomaus’ realm (Pisa) as two of Jupiter’s problematic cult places (ab sedibus illis), and describes them collectively as lands where the river Alpheos runs (1.271-2: …fluctiuaga qua praeterlabitur unda | Sicanios longe relegens Alpheos amores, ‘where the waters driven about by the waves glide, and Alpheus chases from afar his Sicilian loves’).Footnote 21 Besides the geographical proximity of ancient Pisa to Olympia that allows for such an interpretation,Footnote 22 the link is strengthened if we consider that Pindar often does not distinguish between the two cities (e.g. Pind. Ol. 2.3; 4.11; 8.9).
To sum up, Sophocles is the earliest-known author before Statius who explicitly referred to the disfigurement of the suitors’ faces and the use of their heads as building material for a temple. Even if Statius had access to another intermediary work as his source, the other similarities between the Sophoclean version of Oenomaus’ myth and Theb. 1.274‒8 highlighted in this analysis affirm the thematic connection.
Sophoclean innovations: the myth of Lycurgus
The story of Lycurgus, king of the Edonians in Thrace, also offered rich material for dramatic treatment, comprising yet another example of a theomach who is deservedly punished by the gods. According to the main version of the myth, Lycurgus, an arrogant ruler, pursued Dionysus and imprisoned the Bacchants and the Satyrs. After the god’s followers were miraculously freed, Lycurgus was driven mad by Dionysus and killed his own son, Dryas. Subsequently, a famine hit the region of the Edonians who, responding to an oracle, bound Lycurgus and exposed him in the wilderness. The god then punished him by having him dismembered by horses (Apollod. Bibl. 3.5).Footnote 23 In another variant, Lycurgus planned to suppress Dionysus’ worship, waging war against the god and his followers. While retreating from a battle, the Thracian king was entangled in a vine and died, falling off a cliff; according to a slightly different version, he was starved to death after he was bound and thrown into a cave by his enemies.Footnote 24
Sophocles’ treatment of the myth seems to have partially followed the latter account, to which he alludes in the fourth stasimon of Antigone (955–65):Footnote 25
ζεύχθη δ᾽ ὀξύχολος παῖς ὁ Δρύαντος, 955
Ἠδωνῶν βασιλεύς, κερτομίοις
ὀργαῖς, ἐκ Διονύσου
πετρώδει κατάφαρκτος ἐν δεσμῷ.
οὕτω τᾶς μανίας δεινὸν ἀποστάζει
ἀνθηρόν τε μένος. κεῖνος ἐπέγνω μανίαις 960
ψαύων τὸν θεὸν ἐν κερτομίοις γλώσσαις.
παύεσκε μὲν γὰρ ἐνθέους
γυναῖκας εὔιόν τε πῦρ,
φιλαύλους τ᾽ ἠρέθιζε Μούσας. 965
The hot-tempered son of Dryas,
the king of Edonians, was tamed for his taunting anger,
confined by Dionysus in a rocky prison.
Thus, the dangerous and exuberant fury of his madness distilled away.
That man recognised too late
the god, assailing him in his folly with abusive language.
For he kept hindering the divinely inspired women and the fire of Bacchus
and angered the Muses who were fond of the flute.
The excerpt narrates that Lycurgus scorned the divinity of Dionysus and mocked his followers. His behaviour caused the wrath of the god, who subsequently imprisoned him. Attention is immediately drawn to the cryptic phrase πετρώδει … ἐν δεσμῷ. From the scholia uetera on Sophocles we learn that with πετρώδης δεσμός the poet actually meant the vine:Footnote 26
τῷ στερεῷ δεσμῷ τῆς ἀμπέλου958
The firm bond of the vine
τὸν δεσμόν δε τῆς ἀμπέλου πετρώδη εἶπεν ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸν ἰσχυρόν955
He called the bond of the vine ‘rocky’ instead of ‘strong’
Schol. uetera in Soph. Ant. (Xenis Reference Xenis2021, p. 161–2)
This suggestion is further supported by archaeological evidence depicting Lycurgus’ entrapment by the vine, a scene which scholars consider Sophocles’ innovation.Footnote 27 Despite the fact that literary and pictorial representations of the Sophoclean version of Lycurgus’ myth are attested in the years of the res publica, as evidenced from Naevius’ plays (F18 and F34 Manuwald) as well as LIMC Lykourgos I 78, they proliferate during the imperial period (LIMC Lykourgos I 35, 41–3, 51, 70–80), affirming its increasing popularity at the time.Footnote 28 The story of Lycurgus, a mortal refusing to recognise the divine nature of Dionysus, served as another famous example of a theomach who is eventually punished for his insolence, with the violent aspects of the myth drawing the interest of several authors, Statius included.Footnote 29
The scene of Lycurgus’ capture by the vine is vividly described in Thebaid 4.386 when the queen of the Bacchants complains to Dionysus for not aiding Thebes, reminding him of the punishment he reserved for his past enemies, specifically Lycurgus:
pampineumque iubes nemus inreptare Lycurgo
you ordered the vine-forest to crawl upon Lycurgus
The verse describes Bacchus’ weaponisation of nature in the course of punishing his enemy, a motif in Dionysiac legend and imagery (Hom. Hymn Dion. 7.38–41; Apollod. Bibl. 3.36; Ov. Met. 3.664–7; LIMC Dionysus 792), whereby the god uses his divine powers to take over a ship with creeping vines and/or ivy, scaring his enemies away. Given that in our passage the bacchant talks about some form of retribution for an offence against the god, the image conjured up is that of the Edonian king being trapped by the plant in order to be subjected to punishment, which reproduces the version of Lycurgus’ capture as narrated in the Antigone.
Intertextuality and prolepsis
The details in Theb. 1.274‒8 and Theb. 4.386 which suggest Statius’ engagement specifically with the Sophoclean treatments of the myths of Oenomaus and Lycurgus are hard to ignore. The reasons behind Statius’ choice, however, deserve a closer look, and can be attributed to the thematic preoccupations of the Thebaid. Even though there are several links both outside and within the narrative of the Thebaid connecting Oenomaus with Tydeus and Lycurgus with Capaneus, I argue in this section that these thematic correspondences consolidate the analogy in pairs, in order to prefigure the criminal and impious conduct of Statius’ heroes, namely the decapitation and cannibalisation of Melanippus by Tydeus (Theb. 8.751–61), and Capaneus’ theomachy and subsequent punishment (Theb. 10.899–903). At the same time, the figures of Oenomaus and Lycurgus serve as negative exempla to which the two characters of the Thebaid can be compared retrospectively, proving that the crimes of the Thebaid surpass even those of the worst offenders of Sophoclean tragedy.
Oenomaus and Tydeus: familial, ethnic and thematic links
Although the myth of Oenomaus is not related at all to the Theban cycle, there are genealogical and ethnic ties which align his figure with Tydeus, prompting the reader to anticipate the latter’s impious acts in Theb. 8.751–61. According to some traditions, both characters are descendants of AeolusFootnote 30 , and there is also a particular link between Oenomaus and Evenos, Tydeus’ uncle (Apollod. Bibl. 1.7.7; 1.7.10) – the latter married Alcippe, the other daughter of the Pisatan king (Plut. Mor. 315e = Ps.-Plut. Parallela Minora 40), and did to the suitors of his offspring, Marpessa, exactly what Oenomaus did to those of Hippodamia (Schol. Pind. Isth. 4.92a; Schol. Hom. Il. 9.557). These ancestral affinities lead Statius’ reader to expect Tydeus to perpetrate offences of similar nature as those committed by Oenomaus since, in Greek myth, genealogical connections often indicate a tendency that runs through the bloodline.
Ethnic nexuses also strengthen the analogy between the two characters. Tydeus is a native of the city of Calydon in Aetolia (Stat. Theb. 1.669–70), and Statius often refers to his provenance (1.401, 1.453, 2.476: Calydonian; 2.372, 6.835, 8.580, 8.690, 8.737: Aetolian), thus informing its importance in the hero’s portrayal. Located in mid-western Greece, Aetolia was closely linked with Elis,Footnote 31 and the inhabitants of both regions were delineated as the ‘other’ among the Greeks.Footnote 32 It is this ‘otherness’ that reflects and is affirmed by, in the most emphatic manner, the cruel deeds of Oenomaus, guiding readers to expect an analogous crime to be committed by Tydeus, whom Statius also introduces as a foreigner (Stat. Theb. 1.407: prior hospes; 1.439: externi iuuenes),Footnote 33 as the ‘other’, compared with his Argive host.Footnote 34
One should not fail to notice that a tenuous connection between Tydeus and Oenomaus occurs also intra-narratively. At the very end of Juno’s speech, having described the impious acts of Oenomaus, the goddess exhorts Jupiter to spare Argos and justifies her view by mentioning other kingdoms which are worthier of punishment (Theb. 1.281–2: sunt inpia late | regna tibi melius generos passura nocentes, ‘there are impious kingdoms on all sides | for you, which will better suffer injurious sons-in-law). Juno clearly alludes to Polynices and Tydeus, foreshadowing their offences in the upcoming war.Footnote 35
Thematically, the myth of Oenomaus exemplifies aspects of problematic kingship, a core concept in the Thebaid.Footnote 36 His actions are indicative of the tyrant’s megalomania, treachery, brutality and love of violence.Footnote 37 Upon learning of the oracle predicting his death at the hands of his future son-in-law (Diod. Sic. 4.71.2–3), Oenomaus resolves to avoid it by any means necessary. His attitude sketches him as someone who believes he possesses the power to circumvent divine mandates, aptly recalling par excellence the tyrannical figures of the Thebaid, who dismiss or manipulate omens and oracles when they contradict their personal interests.Footnote 38 His treacherous character is exposed when he betroths his daughter to anyone who succeeds against him in a chariot race (Diod. Sic. 4.71.3) – he obviously knows that it would be impossible for anyone to overcome him since the steeds of his chariot were a divine gift from Mars (Apollod. Epit. 2.5) and ‘swifter than the wind’ (Hyg. Fab. 84). In the Thebaid, perfidy goes hand in hand with the Theban throne as Oedipus’ accusation against Creon suggests (11.677–8: …modo perfida regna | fortunaeque locum nostrae, miserande, subisti), and as we infer from Eteocles’ characterisation (3.1: Aoniae moderator perfidus aulae; 11.569: perfide).Footnote 39
Oenomaus’ tyrannical features to which Statius refers explicitly, and thus considered even more relevant for the narrative, are his unprecedented inclination towards violence as well as his brutality (6.349–50: crudelibus ambo | exuuiis diroque inbuti sanguine currus; 7.415–16: nocte ferunt tacita, saeuo decurrere campo | Oenomaum sua Pisa refert).Footnote 40 Both lead to the commission of impietas (4.243–4: infando de more et fractis durat ab usque | axibus Oenomai) since Oenomaus does not stop at defeating his daughter’s suitors or even killing them.Footnote 41 Instead, he abuses their bodies in a barbarous manner by decapitating them, skinning their faces and using their skulls as decoration (cf. F473, and F473a Radt). The act of desecrating a body is, in and of itself, impious, but Oenomaus fosters the impietas of his deeds by refusing funeral rights to the suitors (Theb. 1.276–7: inhumata procorum … ora). His action is instantly recalled in the reader’s mind when Creon issues his very first edict, prohibiting the burial of the Argive warriors (11.662–4). Finally, the collection of the suitors’ heads is emblematic of a tyrant, as McClellan has noted.Footnote 42
Cruelty and enjoyment of violence are also the quintessential characteristics of Tydeus. From the Thebaid’s opening, Statius refers to Tydeus’ proclivity to anger (inmodicus irae, 1.41) which, uncontrollable as it is, seeds and fuels his furor in subsequent scenes.Footnote 43 His madness, in turn, triggers violence, effectuated through the sheer use of force that Tydeus exhibits both in his duel with Polynices (1.390–446) and in the scene of his death. His savagery and ferociousness, often underscored through similes and links with wild animals (wild boar: 1.397 with 1.489–90; bull: 3.330–5; lion: 2.675–81, 8.593–5; tiger: 8.474; eagle: 8.675; wolf: 8.691),Footnote 44 phenomenalise in the extermination of the fifty Thebans who ambushed him (2.496–681), but the climactic moment remains the cannibalisation scene, which fully reveals his bestial nature.Footnote 45 The episode is much anticipated given the analogy between Tydeus and Oenomaus which also prefigures the former’s impietas.Footnote 46 Indeed, in book 8.751–61, Statius describes the heinous crime of the Aetolian:Footnote 47
erigitur Tydeus uultuque occurrit et amens
laetitiaque iraque, ut singultantia uidit
ora trahique oculos seseque agnouit in illo,
imperat abscisum porgi, laeuaque receptum
spectat atrox hostile caput, gliscitque tepentis 755
lumina torua uidens et adhuc dubitantia figi.
…
atque illum effracti perfusum tabe cerebri 760
aspicit et uiuo scelerantem sanguine fauces
Tydeus rises, turns his gaze to him, and mad
with delight and anger as he saw the gasping
face and the dragging eyes and recognised himself in it,
orders the severed head to be brought to him and, upon receiving it with his left hand, he fiercely gazes the enemy’s head and swells,
contemplating the piercing eyes which, even now, hesitate to become fixed.
…
And she [i.e. Athena] looks at him, drenched with the gore of the fractured skull, and polluting his throat with the living blood.
Tydeus contemplates the face (ora) of his fatally wounded enemy, Melanippus, and rejoices (amens laetitia) with the severed head (abscisum … caput) as he is about to cannibalise it. The head obviously becomes disfigured by its subsequent crushing (effracti), which is also inferred from the description of grey matter (tabe cerebri) and blood (uiuo … sanguine) dripping all over Tydeus’ mouth.Footnote 48 These lines are evocative of Oenomaus’ deeds described in Thebaid 1.274–8, referring to the suitors’ trunca ora and their decapitated bodies (abrumptis reliquiis) – in book 8, however, the verbal description is in a way reversed and, instead of decapitated bodies, Statius presents us with a severed head.
Lines 8.751–61 also corroborate Tydeus’ characterisation as the ‘other’ among the Argives, offering another similarity with the Sophoclean figure of Oenomaus, whose adoption of the Scythian custom (F473 Radt) sketches him as a barbarian. Apart from the cannibalism itself, which certain Scythian tribes allegedly practised,Footnote 49 the scene’s battle context recalls their war habit of drinking the blood of the first victim (Hdt. 4.64.1). The conceptual link of Tydeus with the Scythians and, by extension, Oenomaus becomes even stronger if we consider that Tydeus is often assimilated with wild animals, including the lion and the wolf, which were both used as comparanda also for the Scythians’ way of life (Sen. De Ira 2.15), and that in 8.760–1 Tydeus fulfils the will of Dis who wished for a fighter to munch on his enemy’s head like a rabid beast (8.71–2: …sit qui rabidarum more ferarum | mandat atrox hostile caput).
In book 1, Statius’ allusion to the abuse of Hippodamia’s suitors as part of Juno’s argument to dissuade Jupiter from destroying Argos implicitly sketches Oenomaus’ crime as a nefas worse than those perpetrated by any Argive – at least up to the time of the concilium deorum. But with Tydeus’ cannibalisation of Melanippus’ head in book 8, it loses its characterisation as the nefas par excellence. If the scalping of the suitors’ heads, which recalls the custom of the Scythians, and the denial of burial rights are barbaric and impious, Tydeus’ deed appears even more savage in the eyes of the reader, a greater nefas, as it adds to the acts perpetrated by Oenomaus (decapitation, disfigurement, abuse of the dead) the crime of consuming human flesh, and blood.Footnote 50
The impiety of Tydeus’ conduct is further emphasised in the narrative as the outrage extends to both camps and the divine realm.Footnote 51 Athena’s shield crest, the Gorgon, covers the eyes of the goddess with her snake hair to prevent her from contemplating the disgusting sight (Theb. 8.762–4), in a compelling inversion of its purpose,Footnote 52 while the deity does not join the other Olympians before she purifies herself (8.765–6). Even Mars, the most savage of all the gods (9.4), refuses to watch, and turns his horrified horses away from the battle (9.6–7). Both the Thebans and the Argives are flabbergasted at the sight (9.1–4).Footnote 53
Lycurgus and Capaneus: anger, madness and theomachy
The thematic relevance of Lycurgus’ myth to the Thebaid is more straightforward as it directly connects the tyrant’s anger with madness and the resulting impietas, which manifests itself in the form of theomachy. In the Antigone, Lycurgus’ irascibility is foregrounded from the beginning (Soph. Ant. 955: ὀξύχολος). The whole passage is interspersed with words emphasising his wrath (957: ὀργαῖς; 960: μένος) and its transformation into madness (959–60: …τᾶς μανίας δεινὸν ἀποστάζει | ἀνθηρόν τε μένος; 960: μανίαις), which is the cause of his abusive attitude towards Dionysus (960–1). Capaneus’ brief description in the Antigone also focuses on the same characteristics (135–7: …ὃς τότε μαινομένᾳ ξὺν ὁρμᾷ | βακχεύων ἐπέπνει | ῥιπαῖς ἐχθίστων ἀνέμων; ‘who then, raging with mad zeal, was breathing gusts of the most hostile winds’), thus offering a conceptual comparison between the two characters.Footnote 54
In the Thebaid, excessive anger, another tyrannical feature, is the source of the ensuing furor that infects primarily autocratic figures, and subsequently everyone around them.Footnote 55 There are several examples illustrating the transformation of wrath into madness, and its repercussions, such as the episode involving Thiodamas in 10.286–93, as well as the encounter between Tydeus and Polynices in book 1.Footnote 56 But the most striking example remains Capaneus, who is characterised by a notable tendency to ira which mirrors his ‘status as the man of anger’Footnote 57 in the poem. Statius insists on Capaneus’ wrath (Theb. 3.602–603: diu tuto superum contemptor … modo suaserit ira; 6.749: …et stimulis iam languida colla tumescunt; 6.823: at hunc socii tumidum; 6.831–2: et armiferas laxare adsueuerat iras | ingentes), which does not transform into madness until book 10 (10.486: et horrendi stricto mucrone furores; 10.32: insanis Capaneus … in armis; 10.830: maior ab Aoniis poscenda amentia lucis; 11.1–2: Postquam magnanimus furias uirtutis iniquae | consumpsit Capaneus), leading to the climactic scene of his attack against the Olympians, and his impietas. Statius’ sketching of Capaneus recalls Lycurgus’ proclivity to anger and his subsequent descent into furor, which becomes the driving force of his hubristic behaviour (Soph. Ant. 960–1: κεῖνος ἐπέγνω μανίαις | ψαύων τὸν θεὸν…). And just as Lycurgus angered the Muses with his scornful attitude (Soph. Ant. 965: φιλαύλους τ᾽ ἠρέθιζε Μούσας), Capaneus also becomes the target of divine indignation because of his blasphemy (Theb. 10.884–6: pater aequus utrisque | aspicit ingentes ardentum comminus iras | seque obstare uidet).
There is, however, another circumstantial link between Capaneus and Lycurgus in Theb. 10.899–903:Footnote 58
‘nullane pro trepidis’, clamabat, ‘numina Thebis
statis? ubi infandae segnes telluris alumni 900
Bacchus et alcides? piget instigare minores.
tu potius uenias, quis enim concurrere nobis
dignior? en cineres Semelaeaque busta tenentur!
‘Are any of you gods going to fight’, he shouted, ‘for
the city of Thebes in its peril? Where are the lazy offspring of this impious land, Bacchus and Hercules? It vexes me to dare someone inferior:
better you come out (for who is a worthier enemy to engage
with me?): See! Semele’s ashes and tomb are seized!’
Capaneus deplores the lack of divine intervention on behalf of Thebes and in his manic rant challenges Bacchus. This is not surprising since the latter is the protector deity of Thebes and, as such, deserves special focus from the attacker. The focus on Dionysus ties Capaneus with other notorious theomachs, including Lycurgus, who also disrespected the god and questioned his divine nature. And Bacchus is specifically the deity, among all the Olympians, whose voice is heard in direct speech (10.888–9),Footnote 59 just before Capaneus makes his verbal attack:
‘nunc ubi saeua manus meaque heu cunabula flammae?
fulmen, io ubi fulmen?’ ait.
‘Where is your fierce hand now, and, ah!, the flames that were my cradle?
Your lightning-bolt, alas!, where is your lightning bolt?’ he said.
Given that Bacchus is a constant target of such behaviour in Greco-Roman literature, and all his enemies are harshly punished for their insolence, the reader forms the expectation of both Capaneus’ theomachy and its subsequent punishment. But his aggression seems to centre around not only the god himself but also his family: Bacchus (the child), Semele (the mother) and Jupiter (the father). In the reader’s eyes, his nefas spirals to unprecedented limits. Capaneus, who was sketched in earlier books as an ‘atheist’ questioning the power of divination and sacrifice (Theb. 3.616–18), denying the existence of gods (Theb. 3.661)Footnote 60 and recognising himself as a superum contemptor (Theb. 3.602; 9.550), has managed to stir the anger of all the Olympian gods (Theb. 10.884–6) and not just the wrath of some minor deities, like Lycurgus did with the Muses (Soph. Ant. 965). His hubris culminates when he ends up mocking Jupiter himself and, by extension, all the Olympians, thus challenging the whole divine order in Theb. 10.904–6:
nunc age nunc totis in me conitere flammis,
Iuppiter! an pauidas tonitru turbare puellas 905
fortior et soceri turres excindere Cadmi?
Now, now come, strive against me with all your fires,
Jupiter! Or are you braver in disturbing scared little girls with your thunder
and destroying the citadels of your kinsman Cadmus?
Capaneus’ conduct is placed only next to that of the Giants by the father of gods (Theb. 10.909–10: quaenam spes hominum tumidae post proelia Phlegrae? ׀ tune etiam feriendus?, ‘What hope is there for mortals after the battles of boastful Phlegra? Must you be struck also?’), underscoring the extraordinariness of his crime, and foreshadowing his upcoming death at the hands of Jupiter himself.Footnote 61 Indeed, in 10.927–8, Jupiter strikes the hero with his lightning (talia dicentem toto Ioue fulmen adactum | corripuit) in an impressive weaponisation of the forces of nature, which were also exploited by Dionysus in order to make Lycurgus yield. The fact that Capaneus had asked for the strongest thunderbolts that Jupiter can hurl (10.904), and not those that killed Semele (10.903–6), as well as the god’s ‘response’ toto Ioue confirm his assimilation with the Giants, and the magnitude of his theomachy.Footnote 62
The points of similarity between the situation of Lycurgus and that of Capaneus invite comparison between the two, inviting the reader to anticipate the futility of the latter’s endeavours and the severity of his punishment. Statius’ Sophoclean Lycurgus thus serves to articulate Capaneus’ ultimate criminality, far exceeding the wickedness of Lycurgus.
Conclusions
Juno’s description of Oenomaus’ crimes in Theb. 1.274‒8 and the queen Bacchant’s reminder of Lycurgus’ punishment in Theb. 4.386 include or allude to certain details which scholars have long considered Sophocles’ innovations, as can be inferred from F473 and F473a (Radt), and the fourth stasimon of the Antigone (955–965), respectively. Although not related to the Theban myth, both Lycurgus’ theomachy as well as Oenomaus’ abuse of the dead have strong thematic connections to the Thebaid’s narrative. The former is particularly relevant in the case of Capaneus’ threats against the Olympians (Theb. 10.899–906), while the latter fits with Tydeus’ cannibalisation of Melanippus (Theb. 8.751–61), thus forming an analogy in pairs between these Statian heroes and the two mythological kings. The thematic analogy, as well as other nexuses between each pair, give the excerpts in Theb. 1.274‒8 and 4.386 a proleptic function: the barbarous and violent acts of Oenomaus foreshadow the gruesomeness of Tydeus’ conduct, whereas Lycurgus’ blasphemous behaviour points forward to Capaneus’ theomachy. At the same time, these mythological tyrants serve as negative examples with which the reader retrospectively compares the two Statian heroes, and assesses their crimes as worse than those perpetrated by earlier, notorious offenders. This article thus demonstrates the suggestive complexity of Statius’ allusive incorporation of Greek tragedy in the Thebaid.
Open access
